Opinion

Hot Topics:

If gays are individuals, they have rights

By RAHN FORNEY

Updated:
04/30/2013 08:10:11 AM EDT

I am not lying when I say that I don't understand the reason for the debate about gay marriage that has cascaded through the media for the past few weeks, more recently overwhelmed by even hotter-button issues like gun control and terrorism.

I lack understanding, though I am being no more dense than usual. I am, however, being as stubborn as usual, and that stubbornness is born from an absolute demand that the nation and all its component parts recognize that the United States was created to protect individuals, not to forward the will of the majority or to create a ruling political class.

Our government was built to protect the rights of the individual. Our Constitution didn't get everything correct at first. Forgetting a gender, accepting that cosmetic differences in skin color was worth eliminating two-fifths of a person, that sort of thing, showed that we had work to do between our foundation and today.

And we've done some of that work. We figured out that slavery was bad; that women possess cognitive reasoning and capability to vote, own things and make independent decisions; and 18-year-olds, being old enough to be blown to atoms by an artillery shell should be given a say in the leaders who might send them off to do so.

We have learned. But we haven't learned everything. Maturity is a long road for a species.

The gay-marriage issue is another teaching moment. Let's not wind up in the corner with a dunce cap.

Advertisement

The corner is my turf; dunce cap optional.

Gay marriage doesn't give me pause. It should be an option for those who wish to pursue it. Why should heterosexuals bear all the agony of matrimony, after all?

But, being a word guy, I do hesistate at the use of the term "marriage." My definition may not be yours, or the government's. I'll get over it.

Gay couples should be afforded all the rights attendant to straight couples. A "marriage" is a legal contract in addition to being an emotional state. But it is often defined as having religious denotations, and there is where I have to shy away, just a little.

I'm not sure that any couple, regardless of orientation, has the right to a "marriage" that contains a religious element. That is a matter for the individual church. Now, if that church and its members choose to embrace the idea of gay marriage, fine, done deal, no further questions.

If it does not, it should not be forced to do so, because the same protections that allow individuals to marry also allow churches to determine their tenets. Any particular church isn't the only game in town; those of a religious bent and a same-sex orientation may have to seek out a place of worship that is more accepting than another.

Or (and better, from where I sit, in the corner, with the dunce cap), ignore the religious aspect of all of it, head off to the nearest government office for the required license (really ... sigh) and then find a magisterial district judge, a ship captain or some other person with the power to create a legally binding union without dragging God (either willingly or kicking and screaming) into it.

Militantly claiming that churches must toe the line on every right that every individual might want to ever have is as egregious and as limiting of its rights as is the opposite. Now, inquisitions are bad; "churches" like the Westboro Baptists are stark-raving moon-howlers, so there are rational limits. But we let the Catholic Church limit priests to a single gender, so we can plainly see there are different protections afforded religious beliefs than would be seen in a secular setting.

If you object to gay marriage for religious reasons, fine. Do so. If you object because it's not traditional, fine. Do so. If you object because you're not comfortable with it, fine. Do so.

But none of those objections is enough to limit the rights of those who wish to pursue a conjoined state. Discomfort is not a limitation of one's rights. Religious rights of one do not trump civic rights of another, especially one who doesn't share those same (or necessarily any) religious views. And traditions are not dictated by law or religion. One person's traditions are another's oddball anachronisms.

The basic right for one individual to join with another as a single legal entity should exist for everyone, all the time. The mechanics of getting to that legal state may be argued, but the underlying right should not be, should never have been.

What religion has to say about it doesn't matter. What "the majority" has to say about it doesn't matter. Our government is designed to protect the minority, and the smallest minority in the United States is the individual. If that individual, any individual, isn't given protection equal to any other individual, we are not applying the standards by which we were created.

By not allowing gays to "marry," "wed," "join in a civil union," "be legally bound in a relationship" or do anything else that means essentially the same thing, we are limiting their individual rights.

However discomforting to some, however much it flies in the face of one's religious beliefs, however nontraditional it is, it has to be allowed. There is no argument against it anywhere in the Constitution.

Any disagreement, kindly don't use any of the objections I've already thrown out of my court. I don't care about your religion, your feelings or your comfort level. I do care about your rights, because they're mine, too. I just happen to think that they're everyone's. End of debate.

Forney is the editorial-page editor of the Lebanon Daily News. He can be reached at rahnforney@ldnews.com.

OUARZAZATE, Morocco (AP) — The people are restive, the priesthood is scheming and a fanatic band of insurgents known as the zealots are plotting assassinations — and now to make matters worse, the body of a condemned cult-leader known as Jesus has disappeared from the tomb, apparently following some ancient prophecy. Full Story